We're seriously reaching whole new levels of irrationality with this War on Pot. This kind of shit really makes me want to get into conspiracy theory zone as it is difficult for me to find any rational explaination for the continued persecution of pot users.
I thought the whole point of making drugs illegal was to protect people from hurting themselves? But now we're going to be sure to keep them illegal even when they are helping?
I mean... WHY? It just makes no rational sense, especially when not too long ago we were force feeding a woman who was totally non responsive. And now we are attempting to take away the thing that is helping keep a cognizant woman alive?
......................................... it makes no fucking sense.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
See Blog Title for Article Description
We are taking a break from our blog silence to bring you Statistics, and what may or may not be called "lies." (Am I enjoying this too much? possibly)
And just for kicks, I made my own graph, and this graph shows the total number of deaths due to "Hostile Action" during All 8 years of the clinton administration, and the first FOUR years of the Bush Administration. PLEASE NOTE, this graph is HEAVILY skewed in favor of Bush!!
At Gateway Pundit (via ASC, via ChrisB) today you will find the quote below, asserting that now after 6 years of Bush's Presidency:
US losses in Iraq and Afghanistan today (3525) are approaching the half way mark
(3750) of the military losses during the Clinton years.
Please note boys and girls the careful wording of this statement. It is good that the wording is SO careful, because it prevents the Gateway Pundit from actually outright lieing. Interesting no? Note how he is very specific about US losses In Iraq and Afghanistan, versus all soldiers lost in the Clinton administration. It only takes a moment or two to figure out that this is not a straight comparison.
The graph he shows is here.
He gets his Iraq statistics from this link, which I think includes only casualties that occured in Iraq or Afghanistan (Or possibly leaves out the first two years of Bush's presidency? ) He also links here, which is where he gets his statistics for Clinton.
He gets his Iraq statistics from this link, which I think includes only casualties that occured in Iraq or Afghanistan (Or possibly leaves out the first two years of Bush's presidency? ) He also links here, which is where he gets his statistics for Clinton.
Using that PDF the total number of military deaths under just the first four years of the Bush Administration was 5187. And for the purposes of comparison, the first four years of Clinton's Administration 4621.
And just for kicks, I made my own graph, and this graph shows the total number of deaths due to "Hostile Action" during All 8 years of the clinton administration, and the first FOUR years of the Bush Administration. PLEASE NOTE, this graph is HEAVILY skewed in favor of Bush!!
Clinton on the left, bush on the Right. The Blue bar is deaths from Hostile action, (Clinton had 1, Bush 1102, ) the Purple Bar shows total deaths.
Now I'm not saying that Gateway Pundit was exactly LIEing. I am saying that his comparison of Military deaths under Bush versus under Clinton is meaningless. Beyond the fact that the statistics he uses are from two completely different sources which means they are counted differently and therefore not comparable, the two Presidents are not comparable either. Bush's presidency is and will always be colored by 9/11, and our struggle against Terrorism, and Clinton's is colored by oral sex. Which do you think kills more soldiers?
Now I can understand wanting to be able to say that Bush killed fewer soldiers than Clinton. I mean wont that really get the left's panties in a twist. Quite frankly though, it just isn't true. It's not a straight statistical comparison that he is trying to make, and it ends up sounding a lot like a lie.
UPDATE: I had a discussion with Lance in the comments at ASC that I recommend everyone read. He says he really thinks the intention of Gateway's post was to point out that the same number (or more) soldiers can be lost in peacetime, and not to really make a comparison to Clinton's military. I still think the post could be clearer about what exactly those statistics that he is comparing are measuring. For while I guess it is technically stated, it isn't very explicit and easily misinerpreted. But I'm glad the intention was not to mislead.
I hope people will forgive the somewhat harsh tone of my post. I'd edit it but then apparently I'd be harming the intergity of the blogosphere or some such nonsense. I may have gotten a tad fired up for no reason. Maybe I should go out for a job in radio.
Friday, February 02, 2007
When in Quebec
A town in Quebec has released a notice, basically outlining their town's culture and laws. See the Telegraph article, it also includes a link to the translation of their document. (Via the Advice Goddess)
The purpose of this notice is to inform anyone who might be considering moving there about their customs and laws, so that people can chose to move their or not (I guess) based on them. Of course muslim groups are offended and people are saying it is racist.
But I don't think it is racist, I think it is perfectly resonable. It seems that some people who have recently moved to some countries have been misguided about the laws and customs of that country. And once there, finding that their religious or cultural customs were not followed have tried to change that society to fit their laws.
Apparently some cultures have missed out on the whole "When in Rome" proverb. In moving to any country most immigrants desire to maintain some semblance of their own culture. In America people have been doing this for centuries. Here in Chicago there are tons of neighborhoods that pay homage to the customs and cultures of people's homelands. (Polish, italian, german, mexican, chinese, indian on and on.) But the people in those neighborhoods, while they may maintain symbols of their home, their language, their food, do not require changes in the laws of this city. They do not require (to my knowledge anyway) local citizens or professionals to bend to their cultural needs. Besides carving out a space for themselves, they do not try to change the City.
I believe it is the responsibility of individuals who wish to emmigrate, to ensure that the location they are emmgirating to is compatable with their culture. Similarly they should ensure that any employment they undertake will not require them to do things that violate their religion. As such I think it is very reasonable to notify potential immigrators of the culture of a certain area, and what behaviors will and will not be tolerated, so that they can avoid moving to those places.
The purpose of this notice is to inform anyone who might be considering moving there about their customs and laws, so that people can chose to move their or not (I guess) based on them. Of course muslim groups are offended and people are saying it is racist.
But I don't think it is racist, I think it is perfectly resonable. It seems that some people who have recently moved to some countries have been misguided about the laws and customs of that country. And once there, finding that their religious or cultural customs were not followed have tried to change that society to fit their laws.
Apparently some cultures have missed out on the whole "When in Rome" proverb. In moving to any country most immigrants desire to maintain some semblance of their own culture. In America people have been doing this for centuries. Here in Chicago there are tons of neighborhoods that pay homage to the customs and cultures of people's homelands. (Polish, italian, german, mexican, chinese, indian on and on.) But the people in those neighborhoods, while they may maintain symbols of their home, their language, their food, do not require changes in the laws of this city. They do not require (to my knowledge anyway) local citizens or professionals to bend to their cultural needs. Besides carving out a space for themselves, they do not try to change the City.
I believe it is the responsibility of individuals who wish to emmigrate, to ensure that the location they are emmgirating to is compatable with their culture. Similarly they should ensure that any employment they undertake will not require them to do things that violate their religion. As such I think it is very reasonable to notify potential immigrators of the culture of a certain area, and what behaviors will and will not be tolerated, so that they can avoid moving to those places.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Bored?
Check out the Secret World Chronicle . It is sortof an apocolytpic meets superhero type series all in podcast format. I'm on chapter 3 and it's excellent so far, though some of the readers are better than others.
I wish they did more than one a week!!!
I wish they did more than one a week!!!
Light Bright Ridiculousness
Seriously, Does that look like a bomb?
No, it doesn't. Which is what makes the people quoted in this article sound completely stupid:
.... Uhm.... no?"It’s clear the intent was to get attention by causing fear and unrest that
there was a bomb in that location,” Assistant Attorney General John Grossman
said at their arraignment.
"
"It is outrageous, in a post 9/11 world, that a company would use this type
of marketing scheme,” Mayor Thomas Menino said Wednesday. “I am prepared to take any and all legal action against Turner Broadcasting and its affiliates for any
and all expenses incurred during the response to today’s incidents.”
Conversely these men are freaking brilliant. Seriously, they are my heros. And how pretentious do those journalists sound, could we have LESS of a sense of humor! Just try a bit, maybe we could even be less interesting.
I hope that Turner Broadcasting doesn't cave to this completely ridiculous attempt to cover for a government that is overreacting. I mean, who is really trying to scare the public here? The people trying to advertise their show, or the government who is jumping at shadows?
Friday, January 26, 2007
My Firey Temper
I'm so pissed! I just found out more about the fire in my building.
It turns out that it WASN"T an exploding laptop (as channel two reported) it was having 15 things plugged into 1 power strip. So these two morons who lived above me and are apparently computer engineers of some kind just don't understand how power strips work. They were also in the process of being kicked out of the building since they destroyed their apartment and caused everyone's sinks to back up!
In other news they had time to get six, count em SIX suitcases out of their apartment before the fire got so big they couldn't go back in. And these boys did NOT bother in the least to try to estinquish the fire. They just lined up their suicases outside their apartment. When my neighbor told me this (he'd gone up with the fire inspector) I couldn't even speak, I just made outraged hand gestures. (The guy who told me this was the same neighbor who had actually tried to estinguish the fire, though it was too late.)
Anyway, I hope these guys burn. Figuratively of course. Though I doubt they will.
It turns out that it WASN"T an exploding laptop (as channel two reported) it was having 15 things plugged into 1 power strip. So these two morons who lived above me and are apparently computer engineers of some kind just don't understand how power strips work. They were also in the process of being kicked out of the building since they destroyed their apartment and caused everyone's sinks to back up!
In other news they had time to get six, count em SIX suitcases out of their apartment before the fire got so big they couldn't go back in. And these boys did NOT bother in the least to try to estinquish the fire. They just lined up their suicases outside their apartment. When my neighbor told me this (he'd gone up with the fire inspector) I couldn't even speak, I just made outraged hand gestures. (The guy who told me this was the same neighbor who had actually tried to estinguish the fire, though it was too late.)
Anyway, I hope these guys burn. Figuratively of course. Though I doubt they will.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
On Fire
Is what the apartment above me was at about 0230 Wednesday night. The news outlets in the area are reporting that it was due to a laptop left on a couch.
My Chef woke me up at about 2:30 Am with "Uhhh the apartment above us is on fire." I would like to say that I jumped from the bed and gathered all my readily available necessities and escaped in under five minutes. More like we slowly hearded the cats and I ran around like a chicken without its proverbial head trying to find my keys while I called the fire department. Fortunately they were already on their way. We saw the firemen on their way up as we were on the way down, laden with two upset cats. (If you've never tried to get two already very stressed out cats into carriers, well you just haven't lived.)
We existed on snippets of info from the Firemen's radios as they tramped in and out of the building for at least an hour. I have no idea how long we were in the tiny entryway with a bunch of our neighbors and their cats, but I think it was about an hour and a half. The whole time I was freaking out that the floor would give way and all my shit would get burned as well.
Fortunately we were allowed to go back up to find that everything had been moved around and covered with tarps, as water poured through lighting fixtures, and along support beams into my apartment. It was sortof like a cave, only it smelled like moldy fire that someone had farted on.
The water is gone now, we cleaned up yesterday, but I have no internet or cable and my phone broke in the shuffle. Everything still smells like ass though but at least nothing important was broken and everyone is safe. Apparently the apartment above us was destroyed, I still haven't gone up to look. If I do, I will post photos.
I need a nap.
My Chef woke me up at about 2:30 Am with "Uhhh the apartment above us is on fire." I would like to say that I jumped from the bed and gathered all my readily available necessities and escaped in under five minutes. More like we slowly hearded the cats and I ran around like a chicken without its proverbial head trying to find my keys while I called the fire department. Fortunately they were already on their way. We saw the firemen on their way up as we were on the way down, laden with two upset cats. (If you've never tried to get two already very stressed out cats into carriers, well you just haven't lived.)
We existed on snippets of info from the Firemen's radios as they tramped in and out of the building for at least an hour. I have no idea how long we were in the tiny entryway with a bunch of our neighbors and their cats, but I think it was about an hour and a half. The whole time I was freaking out that the floor would give way and all my shit would get burned as well.
Fortunately we were allowed to go back up to find that everything had been moved around and covered with tarps, as water poured through lighting fixtures, and along support beams into my apartment. It was sortof like a cave, only it smelled like moldy fire that someone had farted on.
The water is gone now, we cleaned up yesterday, but I have no internet or cable and my phone broke in the shuffle. Everything still smells like ass though but at least nothing important was broken and everyone is safe. Apparently the apartment above us was destroyed, I still haven't gone up to look. If I do, I will post photos.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Independant Thought
A secondhand conjecture posts today about a discussion that I guess I missed, apparently a survey indicated that professors are less religious or likely to believe in God than the general populace. Professors at elite universities were indicated to be even less likely to believe in God.
So of course now there can be discussion about A) how this affects students and B) why academics are such godless heathens. Joy of joys.
My thoughts on this: A) In as much as students are able to make up their own minds based on the information available to them. Students, ESPECIALLY at so called "elite" universities are there to learn to think for themselves. And while a professor may on occasion present evidence to support their own worldview, students are free to make up their own minds. Even in some classes students are required to write papers that echo the teacher's worlview in order to get a good grade this does not necessarily cause them to agree. I could make a perfectly good case for universal health care that doesn't mean that I agree with it.
And B) Because to be an academic one must be able to evaluate information and make decisions about it. I'm not arguing that anyone with a brain doesn't believe in God. I am arguing that social pressures (while they still exist) are less prominent for members of elite academic communities because they are encouraged to question the status quo.
If one considers the origins of religion or spirituality this answer makes a bit more sense. When I was two, nobody asked me if I thought there was a God. Many children are raised from a young age to believe in god and many people continue to follow the religion of their parents. Fewer people are left to their own devices to someday sit up from their blocks and say they believe in God. (Note: I'm not saying that people who are not born into religion do not eventually chose a religion. ) I am saying that when your whole family, your culture and your society revolve around the belief in God it can be very difficult to say otherwise. And many times you not only have to reject the idea of God but also a whole set of beliefes and traditions that make up a religion. So to reject those traditions requires someone with a high capacity for independant thought. Surely these individuals are found in many places, but I imagine they are found higher percentages in academia.
The MOST telling part of this discussion is the following questiong from the article (quoted on ASC):
So of course now there can be discussion about A) how this affects students and B) why academics are such godless heathens. Joy of joys.
My thoughts on this: A) In as much as students are able to make up their own minds based on the information available to them. Students, ESPECIALLY at so called "elite" universities are there to learn to think for themselves. And while a professor may on occasion present evidence to support their own worldview, students are free to make up their own minds. Even in some classes students are required to write papers that echo the teacher's worlview in order to get a good grade this does not necessarily cause them to agree. I could make a perfectly good case for universal health care that doesn't mean that I agree with it.
And B) Because to be an academic one must be able to evaluate information and make decisions about it. I'm not arguing that anyone with a brain doesn't believe in God. I am arguing that social pressures (while they still exist) are less prominent for members of elite academic communities because they are encouraged to question the status quo.
If one considers the origins of religion or spirituality this answer makes a bit more sense. When I was two, nobody asked me if I thought there was a God. Many children are raised from a young age to believe in god and many people continue to follow the religion of their parents. Fewer people are left to their own devices to someday sit up from their blocks and say they believe in God. (Note: I'm not saying that people who are not born into religion do not eventually chose a religion. ) I am saying that when your whole family, your culture and your society revolve around the belief in God it can be very difficult to say otherwise. And many times you not only have to reject the idea of God but also a whole set of beliefes and traditions that make up a religion. So to reject those traditions requires someone with a high capacity for independant thought. Surely these individuals are found in many places, but I imagine they are found higher percentages in academia.
The MOST telling part of this discussion is the following questiong from the article (quoted on ASC):
So should we favor elite professors’ views on God, or can we identify other
relevant considerations?
OF course not! You should favor your own beliefs about God. If you question his existance then by all means read up on some of the interesting books that refute the idea of God. But if you REALLY believe, then why do you care what some physics prof believes? What is it with people and the need to agree with others? Why can't we all make up our own minds!?
This drives me NUTS, especially when people who believe seem to think that unless I agree with them their beliefs are meaningless.
On Choice
Today, as some people might know is the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. And the Bush v. Choice action center asks that people blogging for choice this year post why they are pro choice.
My relationship with choice is somewhat complicated. Attending Catholic school for most of my life I can't really describe my position as anything other than "brainwashed" until I reached college. From an early age abstinence was obvious as the only choice for anyone who didn't want to have children. And when I was 10 this seemed to be a perfectly reasonable position.
In highschool I was President of the "Respect Life" organization. (Though most of the work they did under my leadership was working to make people's lives better, we participated in Habitat for Humanity and similar programs as well as doing things for people in nursing homes and more. Very few of our events were abortion related.) I recieved tons of misinformation about abortion and how the body works, both at Pro life conferences and at school.
A lot of that misinformation was focused on two areas, how birth control works, and when the fetus was "alive." Birth control, in all its forms was touted as ineffective. I don't remember learning about hormonal birth control, but we did talk about IUDs and these were specifically touted as forms of abortion. Also the morning after pill and RU486 were frequently confused with one another. But above all the fetuses life was touted, it's right to live. The wants and desires of the mother never entered into the conversation. By getting pregnant the woman had forfieted these rights. Only after the abortion were her thoughts relevant. We had a speaker at one of these conferences who spoke of her experiences with abortion and how it had scarred her for life. (Femeniste has a post about this "Post Abortion Syndrome" .)
It wasn't until college that I really thought about how important controlling my body's reproduction was to my own personal freedom. Unsurprisingly my desire to remain abstinent did not last into college. I took the morning after pill once, and beat myself up about it for at least a year. Because all of my prior education had told me that if you get sex you WILL get pregnant and that EC was the same as abortion. That particular instance resulted in a large amount of hysteria and depression, but (and this relates to the feminste post) in the light of day I think it had more to do with a traumatic sexual experience, and catholic guilt than it had to do with EC.
After dealing with several of my own scares and a very real issue that a friend of mine had, it wasn't surprising that I started re thinking my position on the abortion issue. (I had totally changed my mind about birth control at this point.) But I think the thing that changed my mind was the day we talked about Margaret Sanger in my Development of American Culture class. Until then I don't think I ever really made the connection between a woman's right to control her own body and a woman's ability to have a career. Nor were coat hanger abortions or how damaging childbirth can be to a woman's body ever an issue. But considering those, I changed my mind.
I still don't think I could ever have an abortion. I'm fairly certain the guilt would kill me (gee thanks Rome). But I wont stand in the way of other women's right to do so, nor will I condemn them for it. It is a very difficult decision and one every woman (or couple) has to make for herself (themselves) based on their own situation. I do think that better funding for birth control and better sex education in schools are the most important steps to lowering the abortion rate, by lowering the number of unintended pregnancies.
And now back to our regularly scheduled ranting.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Anti Feminist Conspiracy Theorist
This is so crazy I can barely get through it. Apparently feminism is all part of some evil one world government scheme. I wonder if the author should actually consider seeing a mental health professional. But considering she puts "quotes" around it every time she says it, it seems like she's already been and didn't like it when her shrink told her she was crazy.
Feministe and femenisting (thematic no?) have more interesting posts about her lovely writings. I am just going to post my letter to her as I sooo enjoyed writing it and it will give me satisfaction to know that someone has actually read it.
Good Afternoon Ms. Levant,
I'm sure that in light of the fact that I am one of the "Dumbest Women who have ever walked the earth" you are not exactly delighted to hear from me. I had considered writing to you to prove you wrong about how dumb I am based on my various academic and professional accomplishments. But this does not seem like it would be entirely productive. You have clearly made up your mind that as someone who desires rights of her own (like the right to own property, to have my own income, to vote etc) I am part of some vast conspiracy to unite the world under some strange form of socialist fascism.
It seems that you long for the days where women were unable to vote, own property, make choices about their own reproduction, work outside the home, get a college degree, or publish books in their own name. And while this is not a longing that I share, I can understand how you would not want to feel the heavy weight of responsibility on your shoulders. So if you prefer to transfer that weight to the stronger more capable shoulders of your husband, I, even as a feminist, can understand. You don't have to vote, or excersize your "rights" to own property, or get a degree, or publish (oh, too late on that one eh?). It is your right to refuse these "rights" that you find so oppressive, as they are a product of feminism.
As one of the dumbest women on earth I find myself puzzled by your stance on feminism. Perhaps you in your wisdom can clarify it for me. How is it that a member of a group can campaign for the continued subjegation for that group as a whole? Why would an individual stand up and say "People who are like me are stupid and do not deserve rights." It puzzles me. My first thought is that someone with such a low opinion of themselves should seek the guidance of a "mental health" professional, who can help them navigate their own self loathing in a more personalized manner that will not actively hurt the cause of their fellows.
While I can understand why one would be willing to give up their own freedoms for a lifestyle or set of beliefs they prefer, I do not think that that individual has the right to hurt the cause of others who desire such rights. I, for instance, plan to go to graduate school, and maybe write a book some day, I look forward to owning my own home having a career and living a long, happy and child free life. If this means that I am supporting an evil one government social fascist conspiracy, well then, it is a conspiracy I am not that upset about participating in. A government that allows me to do exactly what I want with my life without limits based on my gender can't be THAT bad.
Regards,
Shinobi
Feministe and femenisting (thematic no?) have more interesting posts about her lovely writings. I am just going to post my letter to her as I sooo enjoyed writing it and it will give me satisfaction to know that someone has actually read it.
Good Afternoon Ms. Levant,
I'm sure that in light of the fact that I am one of the "Dumbest Women who have ever walked the earth" you are not exactly delighted to hear from me. I had considered writing to you to prove you wrong about how dumb I am based on my various academic and professional accomplishments. But this does not seem like it would be entirely productive. You have clearly made up your mind that as someone who desires rights of her own (like the right to own property, to have my own income, to vote etc) I am part of some vast conspiracy to unite the world under some strange form of socialist fascism.
It seems that you long for the days where women were unable to vote, own property, make choices about their own reproduction, work outside the home, get a college degree, or publish books in their own name. And while this is not a longing that I share, I can understand how you would not want to feel the heavy weight of responsibility on your shoulders. So if you prefer to transfer that weight to the stronger more capable shoulders of your husband, I, even as a feminist, can understand. You don't have to vote, or excersize your "rights" to own property, or get a degree, or publish (oh, too late on that one eh?). It is your right to refuse these "rights" that you find so oppressive, as they are a product of feminism.
As one of the dumbest women on earth I find myself puzzled by your stance on feminism. Perhaps you in your wisdom can clarify it for me. How is it that a member of a group can campaign for the continued subjegation for that group as a whole? Why would an individual stand up and say "People who are like me are stupid and do not deserve rights." It puzzles me. My first thought is that someone with such a low opinion of themselves should seek the guidance of a "mental health" professional, who can help them navigate their own self loathing in a more personalized manner that will not actively hurt the cause of their fellows.
While I can understand why one would be willing to give up their own freedoms for a lifestyle or set of beliefs they prefer, I do not think that that individual has the right to hurt the cause of others who desire such rights. I, for instance, plan to go to graduate school, and maybe write a book some day, I look forward to owning my own home having a career and living a long, happy and child free life. If this means that I am supporting an evil one government social fascist conspiracy, well then, it is a conspiracy I am not that upset about participating in. A government that allows me to do exactly what I want with my life without limits based on my gender can't be THAT bad.
Regards,
Shinobi
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Debunking Depression Research
Scott Burgess does an excellent job of finding the fatal error in some "research" by psychologist Oliver James. (You should read his article as it is better than mine)
The research blames capitalism for higher rates of depression and other mental disorders. And while I wont disagree that capitalism can be depressing (Especially when you get your credit card bill) the research is flawed.
The main claim that Mr. Burgess debunks is the high correlation between wealth disparity and high levels of mental illness. Using a whopping 8 datapoints (The US plus seven other nations) they find a correlation of .73. But when the US is removed from this analysis the correlation is only .24.* The US was a strong outlier, and it accounted for a large portion of the positive relationship. (This could be because the US probably has more psychologists with which to diagnose more mental illnesses, seems like everyone has a shrink these days.)
This throws into sharp focus just how easy it is to mislead with statistics. One data point separates this study from proof that capitalism is the root of all mental illnes and a meaningless excersize in graphing. Whether or not Mr. James is simply ignorant of the proper detection of outliers, or whether he deliberately ignored the obvious flaw in his research is unknown, but the fact remains that this study has been published and it will be believed by people who do not hear anyone speak to the contrary.
HT Chez
* For non stats types, a correlation is the measure of a relationship between two measures. It can range from -1 to 1, 1 being a perfect positive relationship and -1 being a perfect negative relationship. .74 is an extremely strong correlation for real world research. This study illustrates just what a weak measurement correlation is, it can easily be affected by just a few strong outliers. Also, while it shows a strong relationship it cannot prove causation. As I wrote on many a students paper back when I was a TA "Correlation DOES NOT equal Causation."
The research blames capitalism for higher rates of depression and other mental disorders. And while I wont disagree that capitalism can be depressing (Especially when you get your credit card bill) the research is flawed.
The main claim that Mr. Burgess debunks is the high correlation between wealth disparity and high levels of mental illness. Using a whopping 8 datapoints (The US plus seven other nations) they find a correlation of .73. But when the US is removed from this analysis the correlation is only .24.* The US was a strong outlier, and it accounted for a large portion of the positive relationship. (This could be because the US probably has more psychologists with which to diagnose more mental illnesses, seems like everyone has a shrink these days.)
This throws into sharp focus just how easy it is to mislead with statistics. One data point separates this study from proof that capitalism is the root of all mental illnes and a meaningless excersize in graphing. Whether or not Mr. James is simply ignorant of the proper detection of outliers, or whether he deliberately ignored the obvious flaw in his research is unknown, but the fact remains that this study has been published and it will be believed by people who do not hear anyone speak to the contrary.
HT Chez
* For non stats types, a correlation is the measure of a relationship between two measures. It can range from -1 to 1, 1 being a perfect positive relationship and -1 being a perfect negative relationship. .74 is an extremely strong correlation for real world research. This study illustrates just what a weak measurement correlation is, it can easily be affected by just a few strong outliers. Also, while it shows a strong relationship it cannot prove causation. As I wrote on many a students paper back when I was a TA "Correlation DOES NOT equal Causation."
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Buzzing to Conclusions
Dr. Helen posted today on a study that found that senior women tend to under evaluate potential female employees. Here is the Times Online link. (Via insty)
First of all, it should be pointed out that this study, that they are talking about, was conducted in southern spain. Perhaps if they had sampled women throughout europe it would be more valid, but ONLY the southern area of Spain? I really don't think that's a very valid sample for all women in the entire world. (Unless Southern Spain is the most internationally representative location in the word... or something.) I don't think the results can be extrapolated to the world. I know that lots of studies are done on college campuses and then extrapolated. But this study in particular deals with highly cultural issues. There is still a lot of variation on in the world on gender relations. I've heard, in the UK for instance (See this BBC "Quiz"), that women have a tougher time of it than in the US.
Also, I don't like that they jumped to a "queen bee" conclusion and plastered that all over the times online article. They do mention the other options, that men are percieved as better leaders by social bias in passing. It seems to me that there needs to be some clarification, is it a concious bias? or an unconcious bias? are women intentionally putting the women down? or do they just happen to rate the men higher? How much of this is social bias, and how much is getting ahead? But it turns out that this is a FICTIONAL company, the women don't work there, they are just evaluating candidates based on a description of the job and a CV.
So how could it be a queen bee issue at all since the women will absolutely NOT be competing with the candidate?
It isn't, the most IMPORTANT sentance in this entire article was the following, and it was buried at the bottom of the article:
It interesting to me that Dr. Helen picked up on the Queen Bee aspect, and didn't critically evaluate it, or look for other possible explainations. All that this study does is confirm what many people already believe about women, that we are mean and catty and hate eachother. Thank you Mean Girls. And you know what, that is true, some women are mean and catty and hate eachother. Some Men are mean and catty and hate eachother too, hello politics. It is just that when Men do it they are "competitive" and when Women are mean they are "catty."
All this study is doing is perpetuating stereotypes without giving us any real explaination for the phenomenon. Really, is that helpful? The matriarchy indeed, more like patriarchal views affecting how women view eachother.
UPDATE: Title fixed because I am blind to my own typos. Thanks Chris.
First of all, it should be pointed out that this study, that they are talking about, was conducted in southern spain. Perhaps if they had sampled women throughout europe it would be more valid, but ONLY the southern area of Spain? I really don't think that's a very valid sample for all women in the entire world. (Unless Southern Spain is the most internationally representative location in the word... or something.) I don't think the results can be extrapolated to the world. I know that lots of studies are done on college campuses and then extrapolated. But this study in particular deals with highly cultural issues. There is still a lot of variation on in the world on gender relations. I've heard, in the UK for instance (See this BBC "Quiz"), that women have a tougher time of it than in the US.
Also, I don't like that they jumped to a "queen bee" conclusion and plastered that all over the times online article. They do mention the other options, that men are percieved as better leaders by social bias in passing. It seems to me that there needs to be some clarification, is it a concious bias? or an unconcious bias? are women intentionally putting the women down? or do they just happen to rate the men higher? How much of this is social bias, and how much is getting ahead? But it turns out that this is a FICTIONAL company, the women don't work there, they are just evaluating candidates based on a description of the job and a CV.
So how could it be a queen bee issue at all since the women will absolutely NOT be competing with the candidate?
It isn't, the most IMPORTANT sentance in this entire article was the following, and it was buried at the bottom of the article:
They also assessed how likely they might be to receive promotion and were askedSo, the study is based ENTIRELY on stereotypes, because the participants in the study were TOLD to USE stereotypes in making their evaluations!!!!!!!!!!!!! It seems to me that a more valid conclusion than the Queen Bee conclusion would be that women have less positive stereotypical views of other women than men do. Or perhaps that men overcompensate for those views when evaluating women.
to take into account stereotypical traits of men and women such as sensitivity
or aggression.
It interesting to me that Dr. Helen picked up on the Queen Bee aspect, and didn't critically evaluate it, or look for other possible explainations. All that this study does is confirm what many people already believe about women, that we are mean and catty and hate eachother. Thank you Mean Girls. And you know what, that is true, some women are mean and catty and hate eachother. Some Men are mean and catty and hate eachother too, hello politics. It is just that when Men do it they are "competitive" and when Women are mean they are "catty."
All this study is doing is perpetuating stereotypes without giving us any real explaination for the phenomenon. Really, is that helpful? The matriarchy indeed, more like patriarchal views affecting how women view eachother.
UPDATE: Title fixed because I am blind to my own typos. Thanks Chris.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
UnScience:Height
Many women like taller guys. This sucks, but is true. I like taller guys too, you know why, because I'm tall. 6' tall to be exact. So today when I watched a little video on CNN.com about height and it's affects in the work place, I thought I might find out about how height affects my life.
Video: Are you tall enough?* (I'm not sure if this link will work, I tried to e-mail it to myself.)
The tagline for the piece was an extra inch is worth $800. Which sounds like an interesting statistic. But the whole piece is ridiculously unscientific. The guy who wrote Blink is on it talking about how it is so unfair that tall guys have the edge. And I'm sure he had more valuable things to say about height than that.
But apparently that's not interesting enough. The piece de reisstance, they take some guys to a speed dating affair and "prove" it by finding that the chicks were more positive about the Tall Guys. They even say it is not scientific, so WHY do it, It's completely retarded. What if the short guys they picked just happened to be gomers, and that's why they got rated lower. And the stereotypes they put on the guys AH! Disgusting! Then they even go out of their way to make the girls feel bad about liking the tall guys more. They call this news?????? Come ON!
And then the piece ends and I'm thinking. So what about the women? Women can't be tall too? I mean we are on average shorter, but height affects our lives too! IF it doesn't matter if women are tall then they should say so. But that seems unlikely, considering the many times I have had people stand next to me and go "Wow, you're taaaaaaaallllll."
To me it seems like they are saying that the affects of height in the workplace and the dating scene ONLY matter to men. Well they matter to me! They only talk about its affects on men's salary, as if women don't have salaries to worry about, nor do women ever date or have to get things off of shelves apparently.
What the fuck CNN? Way to leave half the population out of your completely stupid news piece.
This is me, sticking to print from now on.
Video: Are you tall enough?* (I'm not sure if this link will work, I tried to e-mail it to myself.)
The tagline for the piece was an extra inch is worth $800. Which sounds like an interesting statistic. But the whole piece is ridiculously unscientific. The guy who wrote Blink is on it talking about how it is so unfair that tall guys have the edge. And I'm sure he had more valuable things to say about height than that.
But apparently that's not interesting enough. The piece de reisstance, they take some guys to a speed dating affair and "prove" it by finding that the chicks were more positive about the Tall Guys. They even say it is not scientific, so WHY do it, It's completely retarded. What if the short guys they picked just happened to be gomers, and that's why they got rated lower. And the stereotypes they put on the guys AH! Disgusting! Then they even go out of their way to make the girls feel bad about liking the tall guys more. They call this news?????? Come ON!
And then the piece ends and I'm thinking. So what about the women? Women can't be tall too? I mean we are on average shorter, but height affects our lives too! IF it doesn't matter if women are tall then they should say so. But that seems unlikely, considering the many times I have had people stand next to me and go "Wow, you're taaaaaaaallllll."
To me it seems like they are saying that the affects of height in the workplace and the dating scene ONLY matter to men. Well they matter to me! They only talk about its affects on men's salary, as if women don't have salaries to worry about, nor do women ever date or have to get things off of shelves apparently.
What the fuck CNN? Way to leave half the population out of your completely stupid news piece.
This is me, sticking to print from now on.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Eragon: The book, The film, The horror
There is nothing that fills me with the ranting outrage as much as the holidays, except perhaps, perfectly good books that are made into movies.
I read Eragon a number of years ago, and I was never quite shiny with it being shelved, constantly, in the Children's or Young Adult section. It's a good book, and it being written by a 15 year old doesn't make it any less complex. But publishers do as publishers will.
What I wish they HADN"T done was sign away the movie rights and turn a perfectly good book into whatever the hell THAT was. It was horrible beyond my wildest imaginings. I loved this book, LOVED, and I almost walked out of the movie, the only think that kept me there were the crying 5 year olds to my left and right.
The beginning of the movie was promising. I had hopes, it was pretty, the graphics were good. But I began to doubt when plot points were eradicated for no apparent reason. Alot of the early stuff wasn't like the book, but some of the changes were unnecessary. They sped up the dragon's ageing, totally understandable. But then they changed completely unrelated stuff and added in a whole schtick about people being forced to join the militia, to explain something, that was explained perfectly well in the book.
But after that they just started ommitting things. Some understandable, some not, whole sections of the plot gone. Cities that were described in breathtaking beauty and detail, replaced with some wooden sticks that look like something out of the swiss family robinson. Characters, that had actual character reduced to being just that guy standing there for five minutes. They removed all of this to make a book that's around 500 pages (I don't have my copy so forgive factual innaccuracy) fit into an hour and a half! That's right an hour and a half! And while they didn't have time for character development, actual sets, or plot, they DID have time for cheesy dialog and a romance that very markedly DOESN"T HAPPEN in the book. Ultimately I'm glad it was too short. I couldn't have stood another 5 minutes, much less another half hour
Which brings me to another point entirely, if you aren't going to do a good job, a la Lord of the Rings, then why bother to make the book into a movie at all? Most Americans are literate, and it would do them some good to read a good book instead of saying "oh I'll just watch the movie." My 17 year old cousin has never read Harry Potter because she can just whatch the movie. And no amount of talking is going to convince her that the book contains a world of detail that the movie cannot even imagine.
I'm not saying that books are a better media, or that no movies should be made from books. But why does EVERY good book have to be made into a movie? Some books are just better as books, and making them a movie is spoiling something amazing. So Hollywood, unless you're going to do a good job, STOP IT! You're ruining a people's chance for actual literacy.
I read Eragon a number of years ago, and I was never quite shiny with it being shelved, constantly, in the Children's or Young Adult section. It's a good book, and it being written by a 15 year old doesn't make it any less complex. But publishers do as publishers will.
What I wish they HADN"T done was sign away the movie rights and turn a perfectly good book into whatever the hell THAT was. It was horrible beyond my wildest imaginings. I loved this book, LOVED, and I almost walked out of the movie, the only think that kept me there were the crying 5 year olds to my left and right.
The beginning of the movie was promising. I had hopes, it was pretty, the graphics were good. But I began to doubt when plot points were eradicated for no apparent reason. Alot of the early stuff wasn't like the book, but some of the changes were unnecessary. They sped up the dragon's ageing, totally understandable. But then they changed completely unrelated stuff and added in a whole schtick about people being forced to join the militia, to explain something, that was explained perfectly well in the book.
But after that they just started ommitting things. Some understandable, some not, whole sections of the plot gone. Cities that were described in breathtaking beauty and detail, replaced with some wooden sticks that look like something out of the swiss family robinson. Characters, that had actual character reduced to being just that guy standing there for five minutes. They removed all of this to make a book that's around 500 pages (I don't have my copy so forgive factual innaccuracy) fit into an hour and a half! That's right an hour and a half! And while they didn't have time for character development, actual sets, or plot, they DID have time for cheesy dialog and a romance that very markedly DOESN"T HAPPEN in the book. Ultimately I'm glad it was too short. I couldn't have stood another 5 minutes, much less another half hour
Which brings me to another point entirely, if you aren't going to do a good job, a la Lord of the Rings, then why bother to make the book into a movie at all? Most Americans are literate, and it would do them some good to read a good book instead of saying "oh I'll just watch the movie." My 17 year old cousin has never read Harry Potter because she can just whatch the movie. And no amount of talking is going to convince her that the book contains a world of detail that the movie cannot even imagine.
I'm not saying that books are a better media, or that no movies should be made from books. But why does EVERY good book have to be made into a movie? Some books are just better as books, and making them a movie is spoiling something amazing. So Hollywood, unless you're going to do a good job, STOP IT! You're ruining a people's chance for actual literacy.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Don't Chew on your Pencil
From Think Progress:
“The Bush administration is considering doing away with health standards that cut lead from gasoline, widely regarded as one of the nation’s biggest clean-air accomplishments,” the AP reports. “Battery makers, lead smelters, refiners all have lobbied the administration to do away with the Clean Air Act limits.”
It's hard for me to even begin to understand why we would do away with limits on lead in gasoline. Granted most cars these days only run on unleaded gasoline. But the potential damage from lead poisoning is severe.
From the EPA's own website:
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 1978 there were 13.5 million children in the United States with elevated blood lead levels (i.e., 10µg/dl). By 2002, that number had dropped to 310,000 kids.
Note that 1979 was the year the EPA standards forced lead out of gasoline.
It is also worthwhile to note that any exposure to lead, even small exposures has an effect on developing children:
Blood lead levels as low as 10 micrograms per deciliter can impair mental and physical development. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System profile on Lead and Lead Compounds -epa.gov/iris/subst/0277.htm The effects of lead exposure on fetuses and young children can be severe. They include delays in physical and mental development, lower IQ levels, shortened attention spans, and increased behavioral problems.
Now normally I'm not one to cry "the Children, the Children." But lead poisoning is a serious issue. And while the likelihood of people using leaded gasoline again seems slim, I have to wonder if this would also allow refiners, battery makers, and all those groups listed above to release more lead particles into the air as part of their manufacturing processes.
Or it could just be that the regulations are poorly formulated and ridiculous. But, we have no idea at this point. And that makes me a little suspicious.
“The Bush administration is considering doing away with health standards that cut lead from gasoline, widely regarded as one of the nation’s biggest clean-air accomplishments,” the AP reports. “Battery makers, lead smelters, refiners all have lobbied the administration to do away with the Clean Air Act limits.”
It's hard for me to even begin to understand why we would do away with limits on lead in gasoline. Granted most cars these days only run on unleaded gasoline. But the potential damage from lead poisoning is severe.
From the EPA's own website:
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 1978 there were 13.5 million children in the United States with elevated blood lead levels (i.e., 10µg/dl). By 2002, that number had dropped to 310,000 kids.
Note that 1979 was the year the EPA standards forced lead out of gasoline.
It is also worthwhile to note that any exposure to lead, even small exposures has an effect on developing children:
Blood lead levels as low as 10 micrograms per deciliter can impair mental and physical development. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System profile on Lead and Lead Compounds -epa.gov/iris/subst/0277.htm The effects of lead exposure on fetuses and young children can be severe. They include delays in physical and mental development, lower IQ levels, shortened attention spans, and increased behavioral problems.
Now normally I'm not one to cry "the Children, the Children." But lead poisoning is a serious issue. And while the likelihood of people using leaded gasoline again seems slim, I have to wonder if this would also allow refiners, battery makers, and all those groups listed above to release more lead particles into the air as part of their manufacturing processes.
Or it could just be that the regulations are poorly formulated and ridiculous. But, we have no idea at this point. And that makes me a little suspicious.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Disgusted
I will never, NEVER understand people who defend the use of torture. It is disgusting and abhorrent to human nature. Nor is it really that productive. To me it reeks of people who are both afraid and drunk with power simultaneously. (NOt that that makes any sense) Why the outburst, this.
Revolting. And I'm offended that acts like this are being carried out in the name of Americans. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than have to live knowing that any people innocent or guilty were subjected to torture in order to protect me. But honestly I don't think that torturing people really has any affect whatsoever on my chances of being killed by terrorists.
Yuck.
Revolting. And I'm offended that acts like this are being carried out in the name of Americans. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than have to live knowing that any people innocent or guilty were subjected to torture in order to protect me. But honestly I don't think that torturing people really has any affect whatsoever on my chances of being killed by terrorists.
Yuck.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
On Living Together
As some of you may or may not know my boyfriend "The Chef" recently moved in with me. So far my desire to strangle him has been quite minimal. Though my hopes for a cleaner apartment and home Chefed meals so far have not become a reality. It's awesome having him around. And I should point out that not only do we live together, he also work sat my company. Ohhh the togetherness. ::vomit::
So Imagine his mirth when he opened up the Red Eye yesterday to an article entitled "Planning to live together? Only fools rush in." He showed it to me and I was hoping for some really interesting commentary on how living together is hard, and how long most people should wait, some statistics maybe (not that they'd be valid, but y'know... they're kinda factual).
But I should have expected less from a column entitled "Sex Playbook":
"I've grown accustomed to my alone time. I can't imagine a woman moving in with me. Like in the movie "Independence Day": When the aliens invaded, their plan to cohabit Earth didn't work. It wouldn't work if my personal space were invaded, either."
Clearly Jon watched a different version of Independence Day. The Aliens weren't looking to cohabitate with humans, they were looking to exterminate. I know they both end in ate, but surely someone who writes for a newspaper can tell the difference. And if your girlfreind is working on exterminating you...well... then perhaps we need to be a bit more choosy, eh?
He Goes on:
Yes, guys, your past can slowly slip away from you during a live-in situation. I once was exclusive with a woman who never wanted to sleep in my bed because she knew I'd had sex with other women in it. As comfy as the bed was, she said if we ever lived together I'd have to get rid of it. The bed's still here, so you know how that relationship turned out
It seems to me Jon, that your problem isn't so much that you don't want to live with women, it's that you don't want to live with PSYCHO women. This is NOT normal behavior, and that you tolerated it leads me to believe that this woman was either VERY hot, or that you are VERY dumb.
I keep waiting for the part where he talks about how he wouldn't be able to watch porn and jerk it anymore. That part is true. But y'know having a sex partner around all the time is pretty fun.
He ends with some good advice. "If, like me, you are not thrilled with the thought of living with your girlfriend, don't do it. Decline until you're sure you can handle it." This has been an update from the department of DUH! If you don't jump at the chance to spend every spare moment possible with someone, (well maybe not EVERY spare moment, but most of them)then you shouldn't even be considering living together.
The reason, in my opinion that Jon doesn't want to live with a girl, and therefore thinks it is a bad idea for everyone else, is that he hasn't actually dated a girl he really liked as a person. He probably liked them as girls, strange entities with breasts and nice concave parts. But it turns out girls are people too, we have interests and personalities. I know in his strange world where only getting a peice of tail matters this doesn't actually matter.
His view of women seems to be this shrill force that will invade your home and change all your habits. Well I have a few suggestions for him:
1. Date women you actually like as people ( see above) preferalby reality based life forms that understand you have a past and wont manipulate you with it.
2. Get to actually know them as a person before you consider moving in together. This means you have to like them beyond liking nailing them.
3.Don't move them into your house, or you move into theirs, move into a new place together. This way you can both bring your individuality together, to create a space where you will both be comfortable, but neither of you will be on "home" turf.
Or, y'know, keep dating multiple crazy chicks at a time. Sounds like it's workin for ya.
So Imagine his mirth when he opened up the Red Eye yesterday to an article entitled "Planning to live together? Only fools rush in." He showed it to me and I was hoping for some really interesting commentary on how living together is hard, and how long most people should wait, some statistics maybe (not that they'd be valid, but y'know... they're kinda factual).
But I should have expected less from a column entitled "Sex Playbook":
"I've grown accustomed to my alone time. I can't imagine a woman moving in with me. Like in the movie "Independence Day": When the aliens invaded, their plan to cohabit Earth didn't work. It wouldn't work if my personal space were invaded, either."
Clearly Jon watched a different version of Independence Day. The Aliens weren't looking to cohabitate with humans, they were looking to exterminate. I know they both end in ate, but surely someone who writes for a newspaper can tell the difference. And if your girlfreind is working on exterminating you...well... then perhaps we need to be a bit more choosy, eh?
He Goes on:
Yes, guys, your past can slowly slip away from you during a live-in situation. I once was exclusive with a woman who never wanted to sleep in my bed because she knew I'd had sex with other women in it. As comfy as the bed was, she said if we ever lived together I'd have to get rid of it. The bed's still here, so you know how that relationship turned out
It seems to me Jon, that your problem isn't so much that you don't want to live with women, it's that you don't want to live with PSYCHO women. This is NOT normal behavior, and that you tolerated it leads me to believe that this woman was either VERY hot, or that you are VERY dumb.
I keep waiting for the part where he talks about how he wouldn't be able to watch porn and jerk it anymore. That part is true. But y'know having a sex partner around all the time is pretty fun.
He ends with some good advice. "If, like me, you are not thrilled with the thought of living with your girlfriend, don't do it. Decline until you're sure you can handle it." This has been an update from the department of DUH! If you don't jump at the chance to spend every spare moment possible with someone, (well maybe not EVERY spare moment, but most of them)then you shouldn't even be considering living together.
The reason, in my opinion that Jon doesn't want to live with a girl, and therefore thinks it is a bad idea for everyone else, is that he hasn't actually dated a girl he really liked as a person. He probably liked them as girls, strange entities with breasts and nice concave parts. But it turns out girls are people too, we have interests and personalities. I know in his strange world where only getting a peice of tail matters this doesn't actually matter.
His view of women seems to be this shrill force that will invade your home and change all your habits. Well I have a few suggestions for him:
1. Date women you actually like as people ( see above) preferalby reality based life forms that understand you have a past and wont manipulate you with it.
2. Get to actually know them as a person before you consider moving in together. This means you have to like them beyond liking nailing them.
3.Don't move them into your house, or you move into theirs, move into a new place together. This way you can both bring your individuality together, to create a space where you will both be comfortable, but neither of you will be on "home" turf.
Or, y'know, keep dating multiple crazy chicks at a time. Sounds like it's workin for ya.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
On Being Overplayed
We're sorry Mr. Timberlake, but you can't bring sexy back without a reciept.
(stolen from a facebook group)
(stolen from a facebook group)
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Single Sex Schools
Reading Jill's views against the idea of dividing public schools I see her points. I don't think that either boys or girls will benefit from the dumbing down of subjects to make them "easier to grasp" or "gender friendly" and I don't think that boys and girls should be divided during school because their learning sytles are different. In fact, I don't really buy the whole "making learning fun" thing. Learning, real learning, is hard, and if you aren't expected to do it you aren't going to, regardless of who is in your class.
However do think that they students can benefit from being split up during middle and highschool. Why? Because of sex.
I don't care if teenagers have sex, I'm not a prude. I remember very well that they do, and there is nothing we can do to stop them. In fact, I went to a single sex school. All girls, catholic, uniforms, blah blah naughty male fantasy blah blah. And nobody had any trouble getting laid.
I remember in high school I'd occasionally go out with public school kids, and they'd recoil with horror, "how do you go to single sex school, how BORING what do you DO all day."
Shockingly, we learned stuff.
Without the distraction of flirting during school hours us ladies were able to show up, sans makeup and actually get some actual learning done. This is not to say that it is impossible to learn in a co ed environment, it is demonstrably not. But for some girls I think having the opportunity to focus on school without having to worry about the guy they liked sitting behind them was a big benefit. And I can imagine that guys would reap similar benefits. (Though I am not a guy, so...yeah)
I've heard arguments that single sex school makes it harder for the students to interact with members of the opposite sex. But in my experience, areas with a lot of single sex schools (St. Louis, where I grew up, being one) have a lot of co ed extracurriculars. Tons of events are created simply for the purpose of having different schools get to gether so guys and girls are able to mingle. Theaters open auditions to members of the opposite sex from other schools. There are even cross over classes in some schools, my school offered Latin III with another nearby guys school. And another area girls school had joint group projects with nearby guys schools, making the two genders work together on occasion.
So you go to school, all day and learn, and then AFTER school you flirt. I think this is a good plan. It takes some of the sexual focus away from school. Not that school shouldn't be social, after all, students need to learn to work together, but we all know how distracting having a crush can be, or wanting to flirt with someone, or impress someone. Taking those people away (for the straight folks at least) will help minimize the sex related distractions.
This is mentioned in the slate article Jill links to breifly. But I think it is more important than they realize. I think Most teenagers are distracted by attraction to others. It's a distracting thing, and I presume it has something to do with hormones, but I could be wrong. Another thing they mention breifly:
However do think that they students can benefit from being split up during middle and highschool. Why? Because of sex.
I don't care if teenagers have sex, I'm not a prude. I remember very well that they do, and there is nothing we can do to stop them. In fact, I went to a single sex school. All girls, catholic, uniforms, blah blah naughty male fantasy blah blah. And nobody had any trouble getting laid.
I remember in high school I'd occasionally go out with public school kids, and they'd recoil with horror, "how do you go to single sex school, how BORING what do you DO all day."
Shockingly, we learned stuff.
Without the distraction of flirting during school hours us ladies were able to show up, sans makeup and actually get some actual learning done. This is not to say that it is impossible to learn in a co ed environment, it is demonstrably not. But for some girls I think having the opportunity to focus on school without having to worry about the guy they liked sitting behind them was a big benefit. And I can imagine that guys would reap similar benefits. (Though I am not a guy, so...yeah)
I've heard arguments that single sex school makes it harder for the students to interact with members of the opposite sex. But in my experience, areas with a lot of single sex schools (St. Louis, where I grew up, being one) have a lot of co ed extracurriculars. Tons of events are created simply for the purpose of having different schools get to gether so guys and girls are able to mingle. Theaters open auditions to members of the opposite sex from other schools. There are even cross over classes in some schools, my school offered Latin III with another nearby guys school. And another area girls school had joint group projects with nearby guys schools, making the two genders work together on occasion.
So you go to school, all day and learn, and then AFTER school you flirt. I think this is a good plan. It takes some of the sexual focus away from school. Not that school shouldn't be social, after all, students need to learn to work together, but we all know how distracting having a crush can be, or wanting to flirt with someone, or impress someone. Taking those people away (for the straight folks at least) will help minimize the sex related distractions.
This is mentioned in the slate article Jill links to breifly. But I think it is more important than they realize. I think Most teenagers are distracted by attraction to others. It's a distracting thing, and I presume it has something to do with hormones, but I could be wrong. Another thing they mention breifly:
Proponents of single-sex education would protest that their approach gives
children more latitude to carve out a distinctive identity. Removing "the other"
from the classroom can help kids conceive of themselves as individuals rather
than as members of a gender.
This, to me is very personal. Because that has been my experience. I don't think of myself as a girl, I think of myself as a person, who happens to have female genetalia. I think the biggest effect my gender has on me, is making me a feminist, because I feel (now, I never did in highschool) that I am being pushed into traditional gender roles that I don't identify with. Now maybe that's just because I'm a masculine girl, that could be argued, I suppose. But I think it is because I am independant of gender classifications. I do girly things because I like them, not because I'm supposed to, and I do guy things because I like them, not because I'm trying to be a guy. It's not about gender, it's about doing what you enjoy and being who you are.
But ultimately I think schools should be a choice. A single sex school wont be a better place for a kid if it is a bad single sex school. Parents should be able to evaluate the schools and choose based on a free market type system. They know their child best, and know what kind of environments they will thrive in so they should be the "decider"s when it comes to their kid.
(Edited at 3:30, for content)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
